Images of a dispiriting suburbia are so familiar as to be cliché: new homes sitting isolated on lonely cul-de-sacs, miles from any job or anyplace worth walking to; endless highways and strip malls; outsize garages, acres of parking, and roads that are dauntingly wide to pedestrians. With increasing frequency, newspapers and magazines are addressing the ugliness, congestion, and isolation spawned by sprawl. Citizens, with varying degrees of success, have tried to stop new development that threatens to impinge on their space. And some politicians, aware of the growing discontent, have incorporated anti-sprawl policies into their platforms.

Both citizens and politicians, it seems, tend to equate anti-sprawl with anti-growth, and therefore direct their efforts toward impeding development altogether: decades of growth-as-sprawl have convinced most people that any new construction at all is detrimental to the landscape. In Suburban Nation, however, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck argue that although growth may be inexorable, sprawl, as their own experience attests, need not be.

Duany and Plater-Zyberk, a husband-and-wife team who are both architect-developers, have long been designing communities engineered to be vibrant and convivial—antidotes to sprawl. They believe that community planning as it was done in the old days of town greens and dense villages, with people of different income levels mingling in a landscape of pedestrian-oriented scale, makes for far more viable communities than do today's mainstream practices. The couple is perhaps most famous for Seaside —the resort town in Florida that awakened many to the idea that traditional town planning still works. With its emphasis on walkability, consistency of building design, and on appealing spaces for public gathering, Seaside has proved so popular that it costs more to buy or rent there than in adjacent communities where homes are larger and have more land.

In 1993 Duany and Plater-Zyberk helped found the Congress for the New Urbanism, which advocates public-policy changes that facilitate the kind of development they practice. Membership in the organization has swelled in recent years, and the principles of New Urbanism, though criticized by some as promoting an overly quaint aesthetic, have been embraced not just by fellow designers, but by many engineers, developers, and public servants as well. With Jeff Speck, their firm's director of town planning, Duany and Plater-Zyberk have continued to apply their planning principles to communities, both urban and suburban, around the country.

Suburban Nation, which contains much practical advice to help citizens effect desired change in their communities, is an outgrowth of their collective experience. The authors hope their book will serve as a catalyst in the effort to remake America as a community of places that people can care about.

Plater-Zyberk and Speck spoke recently with me by phone.

—Sage Stossel

Some say that
sprawl represents not an unhealthy degeneration, but part of an inevitable
evolution from higher-density living to the lower-density living that Americans
seem to want. What gives you confidence that the tide of sprawl can (or should)
be turned?

Jeff Speck: Saying sprawl was inevitable ignores the degree to which it was
promoted by government policies. A 41,000-mile highway system, for example, was
90 percent funded by the federal government. And Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Affairs mortgage programs made it easier to build a new house than to pay rent for an
apartment.

It was demonstrated long before we came along that sprawl is a fundamentally
unhealthy way to grow by any measure—the amount of gasoline burned, the
degree of pollution, global warming, deforestation, evisceration of farmland,
time wasted in traffic, the rate of obesity as a function of driving
everywhere, and 40,000 deaths a year in car accidents.

As for the question of high-density vs. low-density living, everyone on both
sides of the argument seems to get our position wrong. Urban apologists accuse
us of being "New Suburbanists" because we do projects with suburban densities.
Meanwhile, the sprawl cartel accuses us of trying to force all of America into
urban tenements. But we do suburban developments at five units per acre, and we
also do developments at a hundred units per acre—the density of Greenwich Village. It's not about which density is right, it's
about the organization of the neighborhood system—about ensuring that pedestrian life is possible.

Do you think that it's possible that some of the worst examples of sprawl
could eventually get filled in with corner stores, town centers,
etc.?

Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk: Yes, in fact it's already happening. There are a number of
examples in which shopping centers, for instance, are being rebuilt as town
centers. There's one on Cape Cod called Mashpee Commons that our firm designed.
And there are many in California. I think the best one is Mountain View
designed by Peter Calthorpe. There are even (still rare) cases of people getting
together and deciding to sell out of a subdivision so it can be remade.

As more and more cities and towns go through the process
of trying to implement New Urbanist principles, do you think that New Urbanist consulting
will emerge as a kind of professional specialty?

JS: The number of consultants who would at least call themselves New
Urbanist is quite large and is growing in response to the fact
that a lot of municipalities are asking for them.

EPZ: There are architects, planners, engineers, and others, who serve as New Urbanist consultants. But I think the
best consultant, in a sense, is an educated citizenry. There are principles
that are universal, but in the end, how those principles are applied to each
different community or region is highly individualistic. The decisions have to
come from the communities themselves, so they're not imposed by some external
force.

The ideal of the solitary homestead on a good-sized plot of land is deeply
rooted in the American imagination. Have you found it important to look for
and play up the existence of American historical antecedents to the kind of
densely built, stylistically consistent developments you design?

EPZ: Over the years we've used the American small town as an example.
Many of our illustrations come from historic towns which have a green in the
center and mixed uses and different kinds of housing all around. Clearly that's
part of America's tradition. It's also part of our tradition to be controlling about
land use and boundaries and dimensions. Many New England towns had rules stating that
you couldn't live more than a mile from the town green, in order to maintain
some sense of community and control. Others controlled the way you could graze
your animals on the land or how many animals you could own, in order not to
deplete resources.

So there's a long tradition of control and design for public benefit—not
just for the sake of restricting individuals, but to serve
private interest as well.

You refer frequently in Suburban Nation to the Kentlands development in
Maryland as exemplary of various principles of New Urbanism. Do you consider
Kentlands to be the most effective of the projects you've designed?

EPZ: It's one of the
first non-resort communities we designed, so we've been able to watch it develop over time. And
it does have a range of uses, a range of incomes. It's not perfect—it went through some compromises between design and production—but it
still exhibits the principles quite well. Also, it's a greenfield
community (meaning one that was built from scratch), and it influenced the restoration and rebuilding of a pre-existing community nearby—downtown Gaithersburg.

JS: When I assess one of our projects I always ask two questions:
first, What's wrong with it?, which generally produces a depressing answer,
because there are always things wrong. But then I ask, In what ways does it
differ from contemporary practice? What are the battles that were won? In
that regard, almost every one of our projects is cause for elation. The battles
at Kentlands included mixing the price points (having different houses of
different prices near each other), designing it so that all the kids could walk to school and everyone could walk to shops, and basically creating an extremely
pleasant, comfortable streetscape. The streets are much narrower and much more
pedestrian-friendly than in the communities around it. I lived in Kentlands for a
summer, and I watched as people would drive there, park their cars, and walk
their dogs there. For me, that feels great.

Do you often stay on at a project after it's been built?

JS: There's a role called the Town Architect, where someone has to
administer the code—actually ensure that the buildings that are constructed
follow the code's rules. That can be a developer's representative, or a
government official. Sometimes it's us. In the case of Kentlands it was us.

Do you have a favorite of the projects you've designed?

EPZ: Our projects are like a large family of many children. It's been very
interesting to watch them all grow individually. Some, I suppose, we do wish
could have done better, but most have turned out extremely well. At some point
they become adolescents that are fully formed, and they start developing on
their own based on their genetics as well as their context.

I think we can look back and be very pleased with how well many of these new --
and renewed — places have done.

What did you make of Seaside's portrayal in The Truman Show?

EPZ: Seaside was remade to a certain degree in order to play the
role. They gave it makeup, just like you give an actor. Some of the more
modern-style buildings were given overlays, with façades added and
color changes and so on, so that they would better match the wooden houses.

JS: It's actually gotten us a lot of business. People say, "Oh, you're the people
who designed The Truman Show," and they hire us. I'm not sure if that's
good or bad.

Do they want something like what they saw in The Truman Show?

JS: Not once we've spoken to them. We convince them that they should
know better.

There are two criticisms we usually get about Seaside. The first is that it's
too cute and gingerbready, and the other is that the codes we wrote control it
too much. But what the critics don't realize is that the codes that we wrote
did not in any way suggest or demand gingerbread architecture. In fact the
gingerbready architecture was a result of the market—of people building
their own houses and popular taste. So the great irony is that the only way to
have avoided the hated gingerbread architecture would have been to tighten the hated codes.

You suggest in Suburban Nation that you don't feel strongly about what
architectural style your planning principles are clothed in. Are you hoping,
though, to have the opportunity to design a more modern-style development than
those you've done so far?

JS: I think it might be a half-hearted hope. I'd like it if we designed something modern, because I love modern architecture, and I'm getting a lot of
pressure from my architecture school classmates to prove it! But I'm losing
certainty over Andres's interest in ever building anything modern again. Every
day he seems to become more convinced that classical architecture is superior.

Why do you think that is?

We keep coming across problematic evidence. Andres and I were
just in Berlin a week ago, and we visited a new town by Rob Krier that's in
Potsdam. It's exactly what we advocate. It's a traditional town plan, but it's
with modern architecture. And it looked horrible. We asked ourselves how this
could be made better. We decided that if the architecture had been traditional it might
have been a fantastic project. The clashing of all the different isms and
attitudes and pyrotechnics that modern architects do to get on the cover of the
architectural fashion press was just too much for one town to handle. Also, a lot
of it felt very cold. As an architect I appreciate it, but as a pedestrian, I'm
made uncomfortable by it.

This also brings up an interesting point, which is that modernist architecture
is itself now a historic, dated concept. The flat roofs and the big cantilevers
and all that—that's seventy years old. So in fact, perhaps it's all
historicism of one sort or another.

EPZ: We're living in a time in which the underlying urbanistic
principles are so neglected that that's what we must stress. But as a
designer I feel very strongly that the style is also important. It doesn't really matter
which style it is (although I have my own preferences for styles that
are vernacular to a place), as long as there's a harmony and continuity of
style.

In our time, establishing identity is a real challenge because there are so
many places and so many people. If you allow a pluralism of styles—if you
say "A lot of styles can go here, or any style"—you lose the
opportunity to establish identity.

Once a consistent style has been established so that a place feels like it
has a coherent identity, would ecclecticism within that be okay?

EPZ: Yes. You can make a specific contrast to the prevailing style
for specific reasons: a special public building, for instance.

What kind of implications for community life do you think the current craze
for ordering everything from groceries to furniture over the Internet will
have?

JS: If you believe like we do that society evolves as a function of
casual encounters in the street—people actually seeing each other and
bumping into each other—then it's a scary prospect. However, if you read
contemporary philosophers like Paul Nesbit or Alvin Toffler, they talk about a
concept called "high-tech, high-touch"—that the more disassociated we are
from each other in our work and in our means of communication, the more we seek
out an environment that fosters physical interactions.

EPZ: I think the implications we look forward to are the fact that a
sense of community and a sense of place are becoming more important.
People can make choices about where they work and how they live more than ever
before. Maybe centers like Kinkos—where you can buy paper or use a certain kind
of machine or communications device that you don't have at home—could
become a new focus for community-making: a combination of workplace and
community.

Throughout his campaign, Al Gore has emphasized his committment to fight
sprawl. How well do you think the proposals he's outlined mesh with your own?

JS: From our perspective, Gore, Christine Todd Whitman of New
Jersey, and the Sierra Club are all halfway there. They're all
focusing on preserving land. We're certainly all for open-space preservation,
but that argument never wins for more than a political generation. They might
stop growth temporarily and then someone else gets elected and it starts again
in the worst possible form. The quality of community life isn't going to
improve unless new communities that are built have centers and edges and offer
the ability to enjoy life as a pedestrian. We're not saying "stop growth" --
we're saying "shape growth in a beneficial form."

Do you have any sense of what the election of George W. Bush in 2000 might
mean in terms of addressing sprawl?

JS: We heard a rumor last week that Bush's advisors are investigating
Andres's political affiliation. Which makes us wonder if there's some potential contact and education that might go on. A superficial reading of our principles sometimes
gives people the idea that we're anti-business. We find that very surprising,
given our client base and the money we've made for them. We actually see the
TND [Traditional Neighborhood Developments] as the salvation of the American
homebuilding industry. Imagine the power of this message: it's not growth vs.
no-growth; it's good growth vs. bad growth. The message we're trying to put out
there—listen up George W.!— is that we can end the sprawl mess and
build all the new homes we want.

EPZ: As New Urbanists, we feel that this should be a nonpartisan
issue because more-sustainable communities should be everybody's agenda. So
whether it's Gore or Bush is not the issue as much as that it's being discussed
as part of the electoral picture. Gore has taken the lead on this, but both
parties will be laying claim to it because it's such an important issue for our
time. I think it's becoming more and more everybody's issue.

In your guidelines for successful city development, you write that "a
proactive municipal government ... must determine the type, scale, and quality
of new growth and then act as the lead booster for that growth." Are there any
cities that you think are currently doing an especially successful job of
developing in that way?

EPZ: There are a number of cities that have managed well for a long
time. Charleston, South Carolina, is one of the models that we admire the most.
Mayor Joseph Riley, who's been in office for about eighteen years, is one of the main
reasons for it. There's a whole government that's behind the effort, but he's
the leader. Riley was one of the founders of the National Endowment for
the Arts Mayors' Institute, which sponsors workshops that help mayors around the country deal with design and development issues in their cities. The Institute is really
one of the chief proponents in this country of the idea that the quality of a
city's built environment affects its economic future.

We've been engaged with several different cities that have been making very
focused efforts on their physical environments. Providence, Rhode Island, under
the initiative of an elder-statesman architect named William Warner, took the
highway off its river and has restored urban streets with granite bridges and balustrades.

West Palm Beach, under the leadership of Mayor Nancy Graham and now Mayor Joel
Davies, is doing a major redevelopment effort. There are a lot of buildings
there that are being restored and reused. And there's a lot of open land where
buildings were taken down in the seventies, which is now being developed in
accordance with the traditional urbanism that was originally planned for the city.

You can point to cities and small towns all over the country. Another city very close to home is
Miami Beach, where the design of the city is such an important part of the
political agenda that many of the activists who were initially preservationists
trying to save buildings are now on the city commission.

What's your take on Boston's "Big Dig" project, which is rerouting
Interstate Highway 93 so that instead of cutting through the middle of the
city, it will tunnel underneath?

EPZ: I don't know that much about it. I know it's big; I know there
are cost overruns. But I think actually, generally speaking, the U.S. needs to
be investing in infrastructure in a big way. If you go to a city like Brussels, which is not the largest city in Europe, it has a myriad of tunnels
underneath it to get traffic out of it. These are investments in the future
of an urban area. We could just leave those areas behind. We've been
doing that for decades—the "disposable city" syndrome. Where if something
doesn't work you just leave it and go find something new. That's what causes
urban sprawl.

We want to use our public money wisely. I suspect that when the Big Dig is
done and the city has grown back together again, people will be saying "How did
we ever live without this?"

JS: My first thought has to do with what happened in New York when
the West Side Highway was taken down in 1973 and in San Francisco when the
Embarcadero Freeway was destroyed by an earthquake and taken down. In both
cases, the car trips pretty much disappeared. Those cities have demonstrated
that if you remove highways people actually find other ways to get around. But as a native Bostonian, it's hard to imagine that the removal of that highway could fail to create a complete meltdown. We'll never know.

Secondly, I'm extremely troubled by what appears to be a reneging on the
promise of a transit line that was supposed to be a part of the tunnel. I'm not
completely up on this, but I remember that there was going to be a line between
North and South Stations so that commuters from New York could go all the way to
Maine. The transit line was the major justification made to the greens for the
passage of the funding. From what I hear, that line has either been cut or is
in question. It's the typical bait-and-switch by the road-building lobby. You
end up with the zillion-dollar automotive infrastructure and, as usual, transit
falls by the wayside.

Finally, I'm concerned that one seam is being replaced by another. The idea was
to reunite the city. The latest plan as I understand it is that everyone's just
calling for open space. My question is, How does a huge green swath --
particularly a cheaply-built huge green swath—reunite the city? If it's
done as well as Olmsted did it with the Emerald Necklace and Commonwealth Avenue, that's one thing. But I don't think the budget is there to design it and
to plant it in that quality. We don't need a seam of green—we need parks
and buildings and boulevards. With the appropriate plan and code in
place it could be a wonderful combination of parks and urbanism that's worthy
of Boston.

As the three of you worked together on this book, did you discover any areas
of significant disagreement in your thinking about sprawl or planning?

EPZ: It wasn't the subject matter as much as the tone of the book.
Andres's lectures have been quite caustic and sometimes snide. He's used a
combination of anger and humor to get a lot of people's attention. It works a
lot better in speech, in my opinion, than it does in writing. So we were having
discussions about just how badly we should tread on people's toes and how many
people's toes we should tread on.

JS: Andres and Lizz taught me practically everything I know about
urbanism. And I've seen them proved right again and again. So I had very
little to disagree with them about. But we had different visions as to who our
audience was. I was pushing to go entirely for a popular audience. And Lizz was
more interested in clarifying our arguments for a professional and
academic audience. Andres was somewhere in between. But I think the book is
much stronger as a result of those discussions. The book took five years to write. It was not by any
means a walk in the park. But we can all claim all of it as our own.

Did you know from the very outset of your careers that you were interested
in community planning? Or did you start out with a focus on architecture or
something else?

EPZ: We all have architectural education. Andres and I coincided at
school together. It was in the early-to-mid 1970s, when people were just beginning to be aware of ecology and green building. And there was a burgeoning interest in cities.
The preservation movement really was just beginning. There were some wonderful
urban courses. I don't think we ever dreamt that we would be designing whole
communities or working with whole sectors of cities, but we certainly had a
good grounding for it in the education that we had.

With membership in the Congress for New Ubanism growing, and with so many
people making efforts to learn the New Urbanist principles, are you feeling
optimistic about your ideas starting to catch on?

JS: Herbert Muschamp, the New York Times architecture critic,
who's generally quite critical of our work, described the New Urbanism as the most important collective effort of architects in the second
half of the twentieth century. If he says that, then we figure we're
well on our way.

So there's hope for turning the tide against sprawl?

JS: Every little bit helps. Fifty years from now we'll look back and
we'll either say, "Well, we did it—we stopped sprawl." Or we'll say, "Well, so much for that idea." But even if it's the latter we'll have the satisfaction of a whole
bunch of great projects that at least made a difference individually—even
if, as whole, they weren't enough to change the world.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.